Now,
I've talked about the two-way partnership between certain business
and government. But there is a third rail that is having a major influence
on the policy being created by the PPPs.

Picture,
if you will, an Isosceles triangle. And label each point: 1. Government
Power 2. Corporate Money 3. NGOs Agenda

The
truth is, corporations aren't always willing players in the partnerships
- neither is government, for that matter. Many times both are answering
to pressure from activists with a specific agenda.

Those
activists come in the guise of Non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
They are determined, dedicated and radical. They mean business and
they have the means to force their will on companies. It's almost
masochistic to watch how they treat companies.

Perhaps
you've heard the term Corporate Social Responsibility. The idea is
that corporations must not conduct their affairs merely to achieve
profits for their stockholders - or even to just provide products
and services for their customers.

According
to the doctrine, businesses must also help further the "well-being
of society." You know, "like a good neighbor, State Farm is there."
To many businesses the term means treating customers, employees and
suppliers with respect and integrity, while making sure you aren't
damaging the environment. It's just good business.

But
something much more sinister has control over the force of corporate
social responsibility. As Niger Innis, president of the Congress on
Racial Equality, points out, the ideological environmental movement
is a powerful $4 billion-a-year U.S. industry. On the international
level it's an $8 billion-a-year gorilla.

Many
of its members are intensely eco-centric, and place much higher value
on wildlife and ecological values than on human progress or even human
life. They have a deep fear and loathing of big business, technology,
chemicals, plastics, fossil fuels and biotechnology. And they insist
that the rest of the world should acknowledge and live according to
their fears and ideologies.

They
are masters at using junk science, scare tactics, intimidation and
bogus economic and health claims to gain even greater power. These
people, with their radical political agenda are now succeeding in
forcing Corporate Social Responsibility on more and more companies.

They
assert the right to dictate corporate social responsibility by declaring
themselves stakeholders, even though their only stake is philosophical.
In most cases, they have no economic interest in the companies.

They
place ever-increasing demands on business to take ever more radical
measures in the name of protecting the environment or in the name
of social equity. Products have been banned. Even whole industries
have been destroyed.

Here's
an example of the power of this force as it's tied to Sustainable
Development policies in an incident that took place in Ireland.

There,
McDonalds applied to build a new restaurant in a community. The government
demanded an environmental impact study for the project. Now, that's
not so unusual. Only this environmental study wasn't concerning the
building of the restaurant. Rather, it was to study the effects of
the food to be served on the health of the residents of the community.

McDonalds
has been beaten to a pulp over the issue of obesity, human health
and animal rights. As a result, now you find McDonalds in the forefront
of promoting the green agenda.

Another
example of corporate masochism comes from Caterpillar, the equipment
giant that provides machinery for the mining industry. Recently, Caterpillar
announced it was joining the United States Climate Action Partnership
(USCAP), which is lobbying for caps on carbon dioxide emissions.

If
USCAP reaches its goal for mandatory federal restrictions on the emissions,
the cost of energy will be driven up, hurting Caterpillar's customers
and shareholders. The restrictions would especially harm the poorest
fifth of the U.S. population, who simply can't afford higher energy
costs.

When
asked if he had done a cost analysis on this policy before joining
USCAP, the Chairman of Caterpillar said he had not and would not.
Therefore, he was blindly endorsing a policy that could put his own
company out of business.

Why?
Because he has been forced to accept a political agenda over business
sense. To do otherwise would mean possible government sanctions, regulations
or fines. It's the new way to do business in America.

It's
the force of the triangle. That's Corporate Social Responsibility.
It isn't responsible at all. And it's not very corporate. It's enforcement
of a political agenda.

Many
times these issues begin with what appears to be completely absurd
press releases by obscure fringe groups.

But
businesses must not ignore the source of there rantings. Once they
begin to give sanction to small demands in an attempt to put on a
good face - the bar will be continually raised until the business
becomes merely a tool for a political agenda that is in direct opposition
to their ability to stay in business.

Market
Terrorism

Here's
how nuts it can get. Max Keiser is a new kind of terrorist. He uses
the Internet and boycotts to manipulate stock prices. In that way,
he forces corporations to comply with his brand of radical environmentalism
and Sustainable Development. He puts his hands around corporate throats
and squeezes until they comply with his demands.

Max
Keiser and his ilk hate business and they hate free enterprise and
are using an outrageous tactic to force his agenda and cause chaos
in the marketplace.

Keiser's
operation is called "Karmabanque." That new age-focused name alone
should give you an idea of the wacky worldview that spews from Keiser's
brain. But his brand of activism is much more sinister. He calls himself
a financial anarchist and he and his partner, Stacy Herbert, consider
themselves the "Bonnie and Clyde" of the Internet.

Keiser
describes his audience as Activist, Anarchists and Hedge Funds. It's
a stock exchange of sorts, but with a brilliant and maniacal twist:
It trades on the strength of boycotts.

To
put it in the simplest possible terms, Keiser targets companies that
are vulnerable to boycotts, such as Coca Cola, which relies heavily
on daily consumer sales. Once the boycott has begun, Keiser tells
his minions to buy "put" options on the targeted company's stock -
options betting the stock price will fall. As the boycott drags down
the stock, Keiser and his followers make a quick buck on the options.

Meanwhile,
the company tries to strike a deal with Keiser - give in to his demands
- to get the boycott stopped. The deal, of course, means the company
eats itself alive supporting policy contrary to its own purpose.

Oh
yes, and when the deal is struck, Keiser tells his investors to now
buy "call" options to make more money as the stock goes back up.

So,
here are the tactics we face as the globalists work to dictate our
world. They poison the free market with government-sanctioned monopolies
called public/private partnerships. They call it free trade, yet,
they manipulate the stock market to force companies to destroy themselves
and their investors and call it socially responsible.

In
such a system some businesses receive favors from the power elite
while others are scorned. Friends in high places become the driving
force instead of loyal customers in a free market.

Meanwhile,
as the NGOs apply their pressure to the corporations, they also apply
it to government. Government answers to the current power elite. Government
has the power to destroy business if it so desires. Businesses that
don't play ball are shut out of the process, left to fail. So business
spends more time trying to satisfy the government and non-elected
NGOs than taking care of their customers.

Now
you know why General Electric runs ads against using electricity,
Ford gives money to the Nature Conservancy so they can enforce car
pooling, and Home Depot says it's against cutting down trees.

As
I said, it's masochistic to watch. Torture and pain inflected on the
market place to twist and contort it beyond recognition.

What
is the Republic?

So
why do so many libertarians and conservatives support the concept
of Public/Private Partnerships? By their words they profess to uphold
the principles of freedom, limited government, individualism, private
property and free enterprise. Yet they embrace a policy that eliminates
competition, increases the size and power of government and stamps
out the individual in the process.

A
recent conference held in Virginia, just outside D.C. by such libertarians
was titled "Restoring the Republic." Yet, they called for open borders
and "free trade."

My
question is this: What is the Republic? Is it just a notion floating
on air? Something we can't actually hold in our hand. Is the Republic
just an idea? Or is it a thing? A place?

Only
one nation was created by the Declaration of Independence and the
Constitution: the United States. We were created as that Republic.
The Constitution defines a government that is supposed to have one
purpose, the protection of rights we were born with.

It
is true that every person on earth was born with those rights based
on the principles of freedom. But only one nation was specifically
designed to recognize and protect them: the United States.

If
there are no borders, then what is the Republic they want to preserve?
How can that be done? The Republic is the land of the United States.
The laws of the United States. The judicial system of the United States.
The sovereign states of the United States.

Our
Constitution directs how we create laws by which we live, right down
to the local level. It protects our ability to create a way of life
we desire. Our resources, our economy, our wealth is all determined
by the way of life we have chosen. And it's all protected by the borders
which define the nation - the Republic. And you can't "harmonize"
that with nations that reject those concepts! Canada is a commonwealth
tied to the British Crown; Mexico is socialist.

So
again, I ask, if you eliminate all of that by opening the borders
and inviting nothing short of anarchy - then how do you preserve the
Republic?

Those
who advocate open borders and free trade conveniently mix their terms.
They ignore the powerful drug cartels, the murderous coyote people
- smugglers, the gunrunners, the violent gang members and the terrorists
who are pouring across the border to do harm to this nation.

Of
course there are good, people rushing across that border who truly
seek our promise of freedom. But those are the only ones the open
border crowd chooses to talk about - again ignoring the fact that
they break the law to get here.

In
emotional terms they speak of immigrants and workers and families,
just like those who came through Ellis Island throughout our history.
They speak proudly of their own ancestors who came here to help build
America. But the word "illegal" is conveniently dropped from the language.

And
they really like to quote Thomas Jefferson when he wrote of the "natural
rights which all men have of relinquishing the country in which birth
or other accident may have thrown them, and seeking subsistence and
happiness wheresoever they may be able, or hope to find them."

I
dare say Jefferson could not conceive of an invasion of the nation
he helped found by hordes of illegals who not only refuse to speak
our language or abide by our laws, or respect our culture - but show
outright hatred for all of it. I'm quite sure he would have opposed
that.

How
would Jefferson have reacted to statements such as those made by the
Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan, which says, "Chicano is our identity...it
rejects the notion that we...should assimilate into the Anglo-American
melting pot." They believe Aztlan is the legendary homeland of the
Aztecs and it's theirs to "reconquest." That's not immigration or
migration - it's a hostile invasion of our country.

So
tell me, how will allowing such an invasion of a hostile group interested
only in the destruction of the United States help restore the Republic?

I've
really tried to understand the point of view of the open border -
free trade movement. But somehow their logic escapes me. Just last
week I listened to one of these advocates discuss their position.

He
said he agreed that we couldn't let illegals in the country. He was
certainly opposed to that. So his solution quite literally was to
legislatively open the borders and let them in - all very legal of
course. Guest workers! Ronald Reagan might have called them campers.

So
what is the difference? Legal. Illegal. Why have laws? Without laws
and borders we have anarchy. And how does that restore the Republic?
What Republic?

I
can only say to the libertarians and conservatives who accept such
policy as freedom, as Ayn Rand used to say: "Check your premise."
You have missed a major piece of logic. And you are most definitely
not advocating the principles of freedom.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

Free
trade, NAFTA and the SPP are false gods in the struggle for freedom.
But too many are selling them as the answer to human happiness, wealth
and freedom. In fact, they can only lead to tyranny. For part one
click below.